In the case of Asakura v. City of Seattle et al., 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance in Seattle prohibiting non-citizens from operating pawnshops was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Rokuro Asakura, was a Japanese immigrant who had been running a pawnshop business for several years when he was denied renewal of his license due to this ordinance. He challenged it on grounds that it violated an existing treaty between Japan and the United States which guaranteed Japanese residents in America equal rights to engage in trade and commerce as American citizens themselves enjoyed. The court agreed with Asakura's argument stating that local laws could not interfere with or diminish rights granted by international treaties ratified by federal government - thus reinforcing supremacy clause where federal law takes precedence over state law if there is any conflict between them. This ruling marked an important precedent affirming protection offered by international treaties against discriminatory domestic regulations and highlighted importance of maintaining consistency between local laws and national foreign policy commitments.

In the dissenting opinion for Asakura v. City of Seattle, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and international treaties. He contended that the city ordinance prohibiting non-citizens from obtaining pawnbroker licenses violated a treaty between Japan and the United States which guaranteed Japanese residents in America equal rights to engage in business activities. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal immigration laws as implicitly allowing such discrimination against non-citizen immigrants who are legally residing in U.S., stating it contradicted established principles of statutory construction. In his view, if Congress had intended to allow states or cities to discriminate against legal aliens on economic grounds, they would have explicitly stated so within their legislation.